3 ms·

Yes, but: Both of your comments are out of sync with crude, real-time populism. $2K checks means "MONEY FOR ME NOW" to the proles, ideas like 'tax cut' (which

by jariel 6y ago

Yes, but: Both of your comments are out of sync with crude, real-time populism. $2K checks means "MONEY FOR ME NOW" to the proles, ideas like 'tax cut' (which FYI usually are targeted at the rich), or 'we have to pay for other things over there or' 'but the deficit is big!' - are all rational, but ultimately second order thinking. Not populist. Those matter to people 'paying attention'. Most people are not. You're also missing the fact that it's a very poignant 'flip flop' in that for months, the 'Evil Nancy Pelosi and AOC' had been pushing for exactly that, and were ridiculed for it. Trump's move was savvy: he wanted to put Mitch McConnel in a corner and he really did, and he was smart enough to know that his followers are not ideological and will get riled up and support pretty much whatever he says. Especially if it's 'free money'. It's a really crystal clear example of flip flopping among the proles, in this case, purely on the basis of individual populism. And again I'm not taking sides here, I'm not saying whether it's a good or bad idea etc. just realpolitik populist observation.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> ideas like 'tax cut' (which FYI usually are targeted at the rich), or 'we have to pay for other things over there or' 'but the deficit is big!' - are all rational, but ultimately second order thinking. Not populist. Those matter to people 'paying attention'. But those people (i.e. McConnel) are the ones opposing the $2000. Sending the money is hugely popular with the public, including Republicans. Also: > 'tax cut' (which FYI usually are targeted at the rich) The top marginal rate has been in the 35-39.6% range since 1993. And before then it was lower.
- jariel 6y ago
  Yes, McConnell and most Republicans want to avoid the $2K spend which is consistent with their ideology. Trump's support of $2K checks is completely against policy instinct of his side. It's purely populist. The fact so many Trump supporters support these $2K checks now that they are proposed by him, and not 'the other side' - is the clear indication of the policy flip flop among the proles.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > Yes, McConnell and most Republicans want to avoid the $2K spend which is consistent with their ideology. It's consistent with their politics, for the reasons already mentioned. The major US political parties don't have any consistent ideology. > Trump's support of $2K checks is completely against policy instinct of his side. It's purely populist. Explain why Milton Friedman and others like him on "their side" supported a negative income tax, which is effectively the same thing as sending the checks.
    - jariel 6y ago
      ". The major US political parties don't have any consistent ideology." Yes they do. You are missing the point with Milton Friedman. This is not about 'what works and what doesn't work. This isn't about ideas or their validity. This is about populism and opinions. The 'Right' consistently, ideologically wants 'Restrained spending, balanced budgets, possibly military spending and supply-side economics, Constitutional Originalism, fairly free markets, limited social spending. The 'Left' wants deficit spending, demand side economics (i.e. stimulus cheques) etc. etc.. This is very, very consistent throughout the last many decades. Donald Trump flipped the narrative by pushing for 'free money' for people, which is something 'the Left' has been pushing for hard since the start of the pandemic, and which was consistently rebuffed by the GOP - both sides consistent with their ideology. Because Trump followers support him and don't even understand their own ideology, they think anything he says is 'Conservative' even when it's not. So commenters in Fox News are all huff and puff about 'hard working people need that money' the day Trump made the claim, even though for months, 'the Left' had been pushing that only to rebuked by Fox News readers as being 'socialism'. The plebes are often dumb, and believe whatever their populist leaders tell them, even if it's directly against their own supposed ideologies. This basically the nature of the article.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > The 'Right' consistently, ideologically wants 'Restrained spending, balanced budgets, possibly military spending and supply-side economics, Constitutional Originalism, fairly free markets, limited social spending. Those things are consistent with neither one another nor the actual behavior of Republicans. How are restrained spending and profligate military spending consistent with one another, when they're opposites? When was the last Republican administration to lower the deficit or cut Social Security or Medicare?
- masonic 6y ago
  Sending the money is hugely popular with the public Deficit spending is always popular with the recipients.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > > 'tax cut' (which FYI usually are targeted at the rich) > The top marginal rate has been in the 35-39.6% range since 1993. In 1993, the top 39.6% rate applied starting at $89,151 ($169,407 in 2020 dollars). In 2020, the top 37% bracket starts at $518,401. So, not only is the top rate lower, you have to be making more than 3× as much, adjusted for inflation, before you start paying it. > And before then it was lower. Only from 1987-1992. In 1986, it was 50%, and the top 4 brackets were 42% and up. The 42% rate cut in at $44,781 ($105,746 in 2020 dollars, lower than where the 39.6% in 1993 applied) and even the penultimate 48% rate applied from $59,671 ($140,908 in 2020 dollars, still less than the cutoff for the 1993 39.6% rate.) At that 50% top rate? It was the result of cuts from Reagan's famous giant tax cuts; prior to that tax cut (which was applied in steps from 1981 on) the top rate was 70%.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > In 1993, the top 39.6% rate applied starting at $89,151 ($169,407 in 2020 dollars). In 1993, the top 39.6% rate applied starting at $250,000: https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal.pdf https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fed_individual_r... Adjusted for inflation that's $447,769. Also, the second highest bracket now is still 35% and starts at $207,351. But for "the rich" (e.g. Bezos) the 2.6% difference in the highest bracket is far more significant than any of the rest of it anyway, and it's a difference of 2.6%. Meanwhile increasing the thresholds for the various rates (it wasn't just the top one) reduces the rates paid by the people who make less money. > prior to that tax cut (which was applied in steps from 1981 on) the top rate was 70%. Rates prior to Reagan are incomparable because the rate cuts were coupled with the elimination of massive tax loopholes that were widely exploited, to the point that the high marginal rates only existed on paper and weren't paid in practice.

by jariel 6y ago

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> ideas like 'tax cut' (which FYI usually are targeted at the rich), or 'we have to pay for other things over there or' 'but the deficit is big!' - are all rational, but ultimately second order thinking. Not populist. Those matter to people 'paying attention'. But those people (i.e. McConnel) are the ones opposing the $2000. Sending the money is hugely popular with the public, including Republicans. Also: > 'tax cut' (which FYI usually are targeted at the rich) The top marginal rate has been in the 35-39.6% range since 1993. And before then it was lower.

jariel 6y ago
Yes, McConnell and most Republicans want to avoid the $2K spend which is consistent with their ideology. Trump's support of $2K checks is completely against policy instinct of his side. It's purely populist. The fact so many Trump supporters support these $2K checks now that they are proposed by him, and not 'the other side' - is the clear indication of the policy flip flop among the proles.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > Yes, McConnell and most Republicans want to avoid the $2K spend which is consistent with their ideology. It's consistent with their politics, for the reasons already mentioned. The major US political parties don't have any consistent ideology. > Trump's support of $2K checks is completely against policy instinct of his side. It's purely populist. Explain why Milton Friedman and others like him on "their side" supported a negative income tax, which is effectively the same thing as sending the checks.
  - jariel 6y ago
    ". The major US political parties don't have any consistent ideology." Yes they do. You are missing the point with Milton Friedman. This is not about 'what works and what doesn't work. This isn't about ideas or their validity. This is about populism and opinions. The 'Right' consistently, ideologically wants 'Restrained spending, balanced budgets, possibly military spending and supply-side economics, Constitutional Originalism, fairly free markets, limited social spending. The 'Left' wants deficit spending, demand side economics (i.e. stimulus cheques) etc. etc.. This is very, very consistent throughout the last many decades. Donald Trump flipped the narrative by pushing for 'free money' for people, which is something 'the Left' has been pushing for hard since the start of the pandemic, and which was consistently rebuffed by the GOP - both sides consistent with their ideology. Because Trump followers support him and don't even understand their own ideology, they think anything he says is 'Conservative' even when it's not. So commenters in Fox News are all huff and puff about 'hard working people need that money' the day Trump made the claim, even though for months, 'the Left' had been pushing that only to rebuked by Fox News readers as being 'socialism'. The plebes are often dumb, and believe whatever their populist leaders tell them, even if it's directly against their own supposed ideologies. This basically the nature of the article.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > The 'Right' consistently, ideologically wants 'Restrained spending, balanced budgets, possibly military spending and supply-side economics, Constitutional Originalism, fairly free markets, limited social spending. Those things are consistent with neither one another nor the actual behavior of Republicans. How are restrained spending and profligate military spending consistent with one another, when they're opposites? When was the last Republican administration to lower the deficit or cut Social Security or Medicare?
masonic 6y ago
Sending the money is hugely popular with the public Deficit spending is always popular with the recipients.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> > 'tax cut' (which FYI usually are targeted at the rich) > The top marginal rate has been in the 35-39.6% range since 1993. In 1993, the top 39.6% rate applied starting at $89,151 ($169,407 in 2020 dollars). In 2020, the top 37% bracket starts at $518,401. So, not only is the top rate lower, you have to be making more than 3× as much, adjusted for inflation, before you start paying it. > And before then it was lower. Only from 1987-1992. In 1986, it was 50%, and the top 4 brackets were 42% and up. The 42% rate cut in at $44,781 ($105,746 in 2020 dollars, lower than where the 39.6% in 1993 applied) and even the penultimate 48% rate applied from $59,671 ($140,908 in 2020 dollars, still less than the cutoff for the 1993 39.6% rate.) At that 50% top rate? It was the result of cuts from Reagan's famous giant tax cuts; prior to that tax cut (which was applied in steps from 1981 on) the top rate was 70%.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > In 1993, the top 39.6% rate applied starting at $89,151 ($169,407 in 2020 dollars). In 1993, the top 39.6% rate applied starting at $250,000: https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal.pdf https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fed_individual_r... Adjusted for inflation that's $447,769. Also, the second highest bracket now is still 35% and starts at $207,351. But for "the rich" (e.g. Bezos) the 2.6% difference in the highest bracket is far more significant than any of the rest of it anyway, and it's a difference of 2.6%. Meanwhile increasing the thresholds for the various rates (it wasn't just the top one) reduces the rates paid by the people who make less money. > prior to that tax cut (which was applied in steps from 1981 on) the top rate was 70%. Rates prior to Reagan are incomparable because the rate cuts were coupled with the elimination of massive tax loopholes that were widely exploited, to the point that the high marginal rates only existed on paper and weren't paid in practice.